This is meant to serve as a short demo debate so I can assess the potential of a full debate later on.

I will be PRO, which means I am arguing objective morality exists.

DEFINITIONS:

Objective morality: objective morality is defined by philosopher and professor Justin McBryer as a fundamentally universal and true ethical good that transcends all people.

Exists: To exist is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood." This means that even if we humans cannot recognize it, objective morality is still capable of existing.

**RULES**
1. No Kritiks
2. No New arguments made in final round
3. No trolling
4. You must follow the Debate Structure
5. No Plagiarism
6. Must follow debate definitions.
**ANY violation of these warrants loss of debate.**

There are (at least) two lines of reasoning that we can use to prove objective morality.

A. Intuition.

P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.

P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.

C1: Morality is objective.

Let’s work through this. Whenever two men have a dispute, the one side tries to convince the other that they have violated a standard of good conduct that they both share, while the other argues that they have not violated such a standard.

If there were not a shared standard between them, such an argument would be pointless, as one could simply say “to hell with your standard.” If that were the case, we could not condemn genocide, rape, or any other cruel act because we could not compare it to a universal standard of good conduct. Similarly, you can not argue that a football player committed a foul if the rules of football are not universally true.

Since we DO make disputes/condemnations, this universal standard must exist. Thus, we affirm daily that morality is indeed objective.

B. Probability

P1: If a god exists, then objective morality is true. (This is because the god would be the definition of good itself. i.e. that god's "will" would be standard for "good" conduct.)

P2: It is likely that god exists.

C1: Morality is likely objective.

P2 is likely where disagreement will arise.

I have two proofs of a god’s existence:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Proponents of a naturalist theory will have to propose that, in order to explain everything in the universe, there took place the biggest possible violation of the basic laws of physics 14 billion years ago.

The theist has a much easier time justifying the Big Bang Theory: a god was the “uncaused first cause.” This one assumption that there is a god is vastly more probable than the infinite line of illogical assumptions that one has to make to otherwise justify pure naturalist theory.

“let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.”

The theist has no quarrel with these vast improbabilities. Theism instead posits a god controlled these events.

And thus, since a god would mean objective standard, we can safely arrive to our conclusion that morality is indeed objective.

Thank you.

Forfeited

Round 2

Published:
02.23.20 09:26PM

Extend above arguments. I consent to allow my opponent to give both his constructive and rebuttal during the rebuttal round.

Forfeited

Round 3

Published:
03.01.20 09:37PM

Extend arguments. I can no longer consent to my opponent giving a constructive or rebuttal since he has violated the debate structure twice, and I can not respond to any new arguments as this is the last round.

Thank you. Glad to be of service. However, I must advise, and should have in my previous commentary, that I do not believe a God can be evil. I respect God as a title, and not as a name of an omnipotent being, and, as a title, refers to a person who has achieved perfection in every respect, whereas evil is a complete lack of perfection. It is chaos. However, from a strictly logical argument, which may entertain concepts that are not true, the possibility of an evil god must be considered.

Actually, if I'm honest, I have struggled to find time this week. I will likely struggle to have it the next time around too. For the sake of my sanity, would you be alright with canning this one right now? I think we should commit to a more full debate on it between us, maybe during my spring break.

This vote is entirely backed into because throughout the debate, only the Pro offered any argument at all, and since there was no Con argument, I still don't agree this debate is a "win." Maybe the lack of scoring points by a sports team is a loss for that team, but in the absence of a competitive struggle in a debate, is that a "win" when there is no opponent but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed in which the Con determines to offer no argument? That's a cheap win in my book.
Besides, Pro's argument in round 2 that:

P1: If a god exists, then objective morality is true. (This is because the god would be the definition of good itself. i.e. that god's "will" would be standard for "good" conduct.)

P2: It is likely that god exists.

C1: Morality is likely objective.

Is a logical flaw given the simple acceptance in P1 of the if, then statement because it entirely ignores the possibility that there may be an evil god, or even a god that daily changes as one to the other. See https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/religion/why-must-god-be-good/article3258184.ece

I personally disagree with the reference, but pure logic must consider the possibility; therefore, the if, then does not hold. Therefore, the balance of the argument, depending on a flawed step, cannot merely dismiss the misstep.